This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

How can God's love be unconditional if it requires the follower to repent and...

#121SystemafunkPosted 11/9/2012 2:38:56 PM
Therefore, they (under the assumption of perfect justice) deserve what they give out.
False, nobody deserves to be killed in cold blood.


So what does a person who kills someone in cold blood deserve?


Nobody deserves to get raped.


So what does a person who raped someone deserve?


Nobody deserves to get tortured.


So what does a person who tortured someone deserve?


Not even those that perpetrated it onto others. If we applied eye for eye, then we're sending the message that there are cases where people do indeed deserve to get killed/raped/tortured, which allows the populace to decide on their own who gets to do it.


You are confusing what "would happen" with what "should happen". Just because some of the population would mistakenly apply justice, or that it might instigate people to just "decide for themselves" who gets to be murdered or raped, independent of real justice, doesn't mean that that is what they should do.

The only point you are really making is that perfect justice, instituted by humans, gets misconstrued and then misused by other humans. You say that a person who commits an act doesn't deserve to have that committed back to them because it "sends the wrong message, that people can do whatever they want" even though those other people aren't ACTUALLY following the same model. The problem is not specifically the "justice" it is the fact that people "justify" their own behavior wrongly.

You aren't actually arguing that they don't "deserve" to have such a thing turned back around on them. You are arguing that it would have, in our stupid imperfect human society, unintended consequences on a bunch of people that DIDN'T deserve it.
.
#122hunter_gohanPosted 11/9/2012 2:41:47 PM
Systemafunk posted...
Nice assumption. The reason I wasn't keen on answering was because you already showed what you were wanting your conclusion to be. Why argue with someone who has already made up their mind?


I've laid out my conclusion because whether someone know's 1% of all knowledge, 100% or any percent between those does not factor in at all. If you would like to demonstrate why it would instead of dodging around be my guest.

Stop moving the discussion around. Your claim that God is never just, just because of some of his acts of mercy, is clearly wrong.


Moving the discussion? The fact that he absolutely refuses to show that he exists has been part of my argument from the beginning. The biblical god isn't just based on his actions and words in the bible. Not just from this one instance.

The idea of a "justice system" doesn't even make sense in this context. The simple fact is that God is BOTH just and merciful. That is what is always claimed, and that is still true.


And you are basing that on nothing more then either he or someone else claimed that he is just and merciful; eventhough, his actions speak to the contrary. I can claim Dear Leader of Best Korea is just and merciful. That doesn't mean he is.

You are being silly. Justice is merely "getting what you deserve". You are confusing the word "justice" with what we now consider to be equitable and effective in our justice system.


Yes I'm confusing justice with what we now consider justice. The same way I confuse "morally good" with what we now consider morally good and not "commits genocide at the drop of a hat". I keep forgetting that Christians like to claim their god is these various things, but use completely different definitions of the words.

Meaning, we have already discovered that being just all the time is less effective.


An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth is not justice. It is revenge

However, yes, it does make sense to say that a person who does something negative to someone deserves to have that same exact thing done to them.

If all you care about is revenge, then yeah that makes sense.

What exactly do you disagree with about saying that?

Because you're trying to pass off revenge as justice in an attempt to back up your a priori belief that YHWH is just even though his actions speak otherwise.

You say it is barbaric, but the whole freaking point is that it is BECAUSE what that person did was the same thing, and therefore the same "barbarism". Therefore, they (under the assumption of perfect revenge) deserve what they give out.

Fixed that for you. You wish to inflict the same harm upon someone that they inflicted upon another? Guess what that is the very defintiion of revenge!

Revenge:

"1 : to avenge (as oneself) usually by retaliating in kind or degree
2: to inflict injury in return for <revenge an insult>"

The plain fact though is that our current model of a justice system does NOT make use of this model of justice, because being perfectly just all the time, especially in light of our lack of perfect knowledge, causes problems. It's not the fault of the definitions or the concepts though.

Because we've moved beyond the idea that revenge=justice.
---
Fundamentalism in a nut shell: Raphael: It's God's will. Castiel: How can you say that?! Raphael: Because it's what I want!
#123SystemafunkPosted 11/9/2012 2:48:01 PM
The fact is that a person that kills someone deserves to be killed. That this causes a problem in every day life, where people simply misconstrue it and take the same action where it SHOULDN'T, doesn't mean that it isn't actual justice. No. People deserve back what they put out. That's basically the defintion of being deserving. A good person deserves something good. A bad person deserves something bad. A more good person deserves something more good. A more bad person deserves something more bad. It is, in effect, a lot like Karma.

The other problem of course is that our knowledge is imperfect. But yes, in theory, if a person was absolutely 100% known to have killed someone, then they absolutely and 100% themselves to die. And I say this as someone who is not in support of the death penalty. The reason I am not in support of the death penalty has NOTHING to do with them not actually deserving it. The problem is that we are not supposed to go around giving people what they deserve. If we did that, it would be a problem. As a Christian GOD is supposed to decide between mercy and justice because God does it perfectly. If you don't believe in God, fine. But the fact is that the Bible tells us "Take not vengeance upon yourself beloved. Leave room for the vengeance of the Lord". We are supposed to only show mercy. And yes, I understand that most Christians fall far short on that. It has no bearing on this though.
#124hunter_gohanPosted 11/9/2012 2:55:09 PM
Systemafunk posted...
The fact is that a person that kills someone deserves to be killed.


Only if you desire revenge above justice.
---
Fundamentalism in a nut shell: Raphael: It's God's will. Castiel: How can you say that?! Raphael: Because it's what I want!
#125SystemafunkPosted 11/9/2012 2:58:24 PM
I've laid out my conclusion because whether someone know's 1% of all knowledge, 100% or any percent between those does not factor in at all. If you would like to demonstrate why it would instead of dodging around be my guest.

Because you were taking about mercy and insinuating that mercy =/= justice, therefore God is not just.


Stop moving the discussion around. Your claim that God is never just, just because of some of his acts of mercy, is clearly wrong.

Moving the discussion? The fact that he absolutely refuses to show that he exists has been part of my argument from the beginning.

The biblical god isn't just based on his actions and words in the bible. Not just from this one instance.


In fact, since the discussion we are actually having is one about a hypothetical, yes we are.


The idea of a "justice system" doesn't even make sense in this context. The simple fact is that God is BOTH just and merciful. That is what is always claimed, and that is still true.

And you are basing that on nothing more then either he or someone else claimed that he is just and merciful; eventhough, his actions speak to the contrary. I can claim Dear Leader of Best Korea is just and merciful. That doesn't mean he is.


What actions? Actions that you don't even believe in? This is going far afield from where it should. Your ORIGINAL claim in this part of the discussion was that God's justice system wasn't perfect because his "justice system" involved just meaninglessly forgiving everyone by some magical slight of hand that doesn't actually represent what Christ actually did. Not only is that not ALL of God's "justice system" (as bad a term as that is), but you are wrong about what Christ accomplished.


You are being silly. Justice is merely "getting what you deserve". You are confusing the word "justice" with what we now consider to be equitable and effective in our justice system.

Yes I'm confusing justice with what we now consider justice.


No. You are confusing "justice" with our "justice system" which makes use of more than just justice. Are you always this obstinate?


The same way I confuse "morally good" with what we now consider morally good and not "commits genocide at the drop of a hat". I keep forgetting that Christians like to claim their god is these various things, but use completely different definitions of the words.

Meaning, we have already discovered that being just all the time is less effective.

An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth is not justice. It is revenge


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge

"Revenge is a harmful action against a person or group in response to a grievance, be it real or perceived. It is also called payback, retribution, retaliation or vengeance; it may be characterized as a form of justice, an altruistic action which enforces societal or moral justice aside from the legal system. Referred to as a kind of "wild justice", as described by Francis Bacon.[1]"

Snap.


However, yes, it does make sense to say that a person who does something negative to someone deserves to have that same exact thing done to them.

If all you care about is revenge, then yeah that makes sense.


Or, if all you care about is justice. But if you ALSO care about mercy, or compassion....


Because we've moved beyond the idea that revenge=justice.


No, we've moved beyond the idea that justice alone is a bad idea. I'm not the one being self inconsistent here.
#126kts123Posted 11/9/2012 3:24:16 PM(edited)
It certainly sounded like you were using Pascal's Wager.


It has a superficial resemblance that might make it be mistaken for Pascal's Wager. If you examine it carefully, you'll see they're two entirely difference beasts. (For one, I'm not trying to change your mind about anything, especially not based on some crackpot cost/weight logic.)


I'm talking about something that will happen tangibly to you as an individual -- namely, being aware of the presence of Allah and that Muhammed is his prophet.

See how completely unconvincing basically saying "I'm right, you'll see." is?


Contrary to what is expected in most internet discussions, I'm not trying to convince you of my position.
#127hunter_gohanPosted 11/9/2012 3:28:51 PM
Systemafunk posted...
Because you were taking about mercy and insinuating that mercy =/= justice, therefore God is not just.


Why would I need to insinuate anything? Mercy isn't justice. Would a judge that showed mercy on his defendants and let them walks free be a just judge? Again I'm not basing "god is not just" on this one thing but on all of his actions and words.

In fact, since the discussion we are actually having is one about a hypothetical, yes we are.


Yes we are what?

What actions? Actions that you don't even believe in?


Yes, just like I can look at the Star Wars movies and come to the conclusion that Emperor Palpatine isn't just; eventhough, I know none of that ever happened.

Person X sits in judgement over people. He give his "friends" a pass and finds them not guilty of whatever they do. For everyone else, death penalty no matter the crime.

Do you find that in anyway just at all? Why would your answer be different if X= human judge or if X = YHWH?

His other actions like rampant genocide, approval of slavery and rape etc. also demonstrate how he isn't just at all.

Your ORIGINAL claim in this part of the discussion was that God's justice system wasn't perfect because his "justice system" involved just meaninglessly forgiving everyone by some magical slight of hand that doesn't actually represent what Christ actually did.


Just because I didn't mention something in my original post doesn't mean it doesn't also demonstrate how he isn't just. And this "magical slight of hand that doesn't actually represent what Christ actually did" is coming from Christians. I'm just replying to what they are saying.

Not only is that not ALL of God's "justice system" (as bad a term as that is), but you are wrong about what Christ accomplished.


And the other parts of his justice system are equally unjust.

No. You are confusing "justice" with our "justice system" which makes use of more than just justice. Are you always this obstinate?

And this is based off thinking that revenge=justice which it doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge

"Revenge is a harmful action against a person or group in response to a grievance, be it real or perceived. It is also called payback, retribution, retaliation or vengeance; it may be characterized as a form of justice, an altruistic action which enforces societal or moral justice aside from the legal system. Referred to as a kind of "wild justice", as described by Francis Bacon.[1]"

Snap.


Torturing people for all eternity because they jaywalked may be characterized as a form of justice. Ask anybody if that is at all just though, and I bet you'll get a resounding no. Hell ask Jesus, would he be down with eye for an eye or turn the other cheek? Crucifying people was once considered justice. Should we bring that back? Would that be just? Was the KGB or the SS "just" because they were a part of their respective(entirely unjust) tyrannical dictators idea of justice?

No, we've moved beyond the idea that justice alone is a bad idea. I'm not the one being self inconsistent here.

And you can't seem to get past thinking that something which "may be characterized as a form of justice" is somehow pure unadulterated justice. I can characterize Vader's tendency to force choke people that piss him off as part of Sith justice. That doesn't mean it is just at all.
---
Fundamentalism in a nut shell: Raphael: It's God's will. Castiel: How can you say that?! Raphael: Because it's what I want!
#128DoGCyNPosted 11/9/2012 3:58:18 PM
Wow...Alot has happened since earlier.

You guys like to do that a lot. The problem is we can't do that; otherwise, this discussion is pointless.

You can't just reverse what I say and throw it back at me. The topic title says it all (and even the first post). There is no grey area here. If God doesn't exist, this discussion is pointless. If God does exist, we can actually talk about these questions and debate them.
---
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
#129SystemafunkPosted 11/9/2012 9:02:22 PM
Why would I need to insinuate anything? Mercy isn't justice. Would a judge that showed mercy on his defendants and let them walks free be a just judge? Again I'm not basing "god is not just" on this one thing but on all of his actions and words.

You are saying, and this is practically verbatim, that God's justice system would not be a good model for our justice system. On that level, I agree, but not for the reasons you think. Part of my problem is that you said it would be bad because God is just trivially merciful. This is not true. God will show mercy if and only if you are honestly repentant and have truly accepted Christ into your life (the latter actually causes the former). In a human justice system, this would be impossible. Judge: :Are you really sorry for what you have done, and are willing to try to change your ways" Criminal (lying): "Yes Judge:" Obviously, that doesn't work. Why? Because God ACTUALLY knows the heart. Even if you don't actually believe in God, you have to admit that omniscience WOULD change that. Likewise, God's omniscience makes God's justice actually just.

Of course, if you want to personally entertain the notion that God is secretly evil or deceptive, go right ahead, but that is not the point of THIS discussion.


In fact, since the discussion we are actually having is one about a hypothetical, yes we are.

Yes we are what?


This is a discussion about the Christian understanding of God. It is accepting, for the purposes of discussion, the hypothetical situation that God exists, and is best understood through the progression of the OT and culminating with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

What actions? Actions that you don't even believe in?

Yes, just like I can look at the Star Wars movies and come to the conclusion that Emperor Palpatine isn't just; eventhough, I know none of that ever happened.


This is sounding suspiciously familiar to an old argument. The fact is that you can't selectively discuss God's qualities. God is, for the purpose of this discussion, ACTUALLY omnipotent a. You can't insert your own little footnote that goes "or so God claims"... We are discussing this from the standpoint that the Christian God actually exists and IS ACTUALLY God.


Person X sits in judgement over people. He give his "friends" a pass and finds them not guilty of whatever they do. For everyone else, death penalty no matter the crime.


I'm sorry, but this example is lacking.


Do you find that in anyway just at all? Why would your answer be different if X= human judge or if X = YHWH?


No, that would not be just, and I've already explained why there is a difference, multiple times. I'll put it into math terms for you. It's a very similar reason why X/X = 1, but not when X = infinity. You think you can just go replacing one with the other at will whenever YOU feel it suits your argument. You can't.
#130SystemafunkPosted 11/9/2012 9:04:07 PM

Your ORIGINAL claim in this part of the discussion was that God's justice system wasn't perfect because his "justice system" involved just meaninglessly forgiving everyone by some magical slight of hand that doesn't actually represent what Christ actually did.

Just because I didn't mention something in my original post doesn't mean it doesn't also demonstrate how he isn't just. And this "magical slight of hand that doesn't actually represent what Christ actually did" is coming from Christians. I'm just replying to what they are saying.


No, you are strawmanning it. Just like someone would be strawmanning evolution if they compared it to pokemon evolution. That's what you are doing. You create a seemingly small little misrepresentation that makes something perfectly valid look absolutely ridiculous. And since I actually understand and believe in evolution, I would correctly call you wrong if you compared evolution to pokemon evolution. I would say that you were just not actually understanding evolution. The same thing applies to this. You are, whether deliberately or not, not actually understanding this Christian concept. I'm sorry.


Torturing people for all eternity because they jaywalked may be characterized as a form of justice. Ask anybody if that is at all just though, and I bet you'll get a resounding no.


Well damn, I guess it's a good thing I'm NOT claiming that.


Hell ask Jesus, would he be down with eye for an eye or turn the other cheek? Crucifying people was once considered justice. Should we bring that back? Would that be just? Was the KGB or the SS "just" because they were a part of their respective(entirely unjust) tyrannical dictators idea of justice?


Exactly who is claiming that WE should institute this? Not me. So again, stop strawmanning.


No, we've moved beyond the idea that justice alone is a bad idea. I'm not the one being self inconsistent here.

And you can't seem to get past thinking that something which "may be characterized as a form of justice" is somehow pure unadulterated justice. I can characterize Vader's tendency to force choke people that piss him off as part of Sith justice. That doesn't mean it is just at all.


The premise of justice that I am working with is an entirely reflexive and form of justice based on the predicate of perfect knowledge. Not only is it nothing like "You made me mad, therefore I kill you," or anything else that is uneven, but it does not apply AT ALL to anything else besides a situation involving perfect knowledge, and your continued mixing and mashing around of the two concepts to make both look silly is just a big game to make yourself look right without any real substance.